Explain why this man is wrong

I had the privilege of eating dinner with him after an event he held in Ontario . He was the most vapid individual I have ever met who only showed one moment of being alive: When he found out his dinner was being paid for.

ITT: No actual critiques of him.

samefag rofl

Peterson is alright in my book, but the way his followers espouse that he’s a genius causes a lot of backlash. He’s an intelligent man, a good psychologist, is principled, yet he isn’t the philosopher his followers think he is. He’s simply reiterating socially conservative and classical liberal platitudes through a modern lens, which a lot of young men do need, somehow. His view of to achieve happiness and his shallow “12 Rules” are ultimately reductive, though, yet they are solid first steps for the uninformed. He has far too much trust in the free market and his criticisms of Marxism, too, often falls into melodrama, but it’s still good to see someone protecting the brutal Communist historiography from identity politici revisionists.

He’s either overrated or underrated by people. It helps that Canada is so marooned in the world at the moment, it gives him motivation to try and drag that joke of a nation into some semblance of respect and authority.

Well OP I've listened to JP for about 800 hours. I am a self-proclaimed fanboi. Here's what JP does wrong.

Quantum BS, he'll occasionally cite quantum mechanics in a ridiculously new-agey cringe-inducing manner.

Free Will BS, his support of free will boils down to "but I feeeeeeeeeeel like it" which is precisely what he critiques in post-modernism.

Over the top pragmatism, look I'd self-reference as a pragmatist, but he takes it a length in which 2+2 = 5 if it's convenient to think so, which is stupid.

>he has no new ideas
What? I'm going to assume you mean philophically as he is one of if not the top research psychologist in Canada. In that case, I mostly agree, his work is synthesis. Which inevitably promotes this reaction:

>his explication of better thinkers ideas is vulgur
I partially agree. He heavily interprets other works which I think is reasonable, but the purists are going to get salty.

>he’s a cuck to capitalism and also an ayn rand faggot
I see has that one handled.

>he has no morals
Please give a single example of this. One will do.

>abuses his power to rake in cash from despondend incels
Saying: "I will give away everything I produce for free" then literally never asking for money except once for his students? When for the first time he was denied funding when immediately before he got the largest grant ever given to a psychologist in Canada. I hope you mean something else.

>his followers are insufferable dunning-krueger /pol/edditors.
Owie my feelings

>christfaggotry will always be christfaggotry
Oh yes, because saying "hey there could potentially be something to the religion of the most successful civilization on earth" is pure idiocy...

sums it up for me

Attached: 1480631981974.jpg (720x702, 162K)

>he doesn't give a straight answer on the epistemology of god as a soul/entity/character

Because he doesn't have a short one. If you want to understand his position watch the maps of meaning lectures. That is his answer.

>his solution to resenting being/life/existence is to "stop doing that" because it turns you into a school shooter. i.e. "to be rich stop being poor because being poor sucks"

Impressive mischaracterization. An extremely condensed version of his solution was just published as a book.

pic related is hilarious

He is wrong about depression medication.

his mom gay

/thread

Maps of meaning attempts to solve the is-ought problem by further specifying is, which misses the point. I don't hate him, Im sure he is a perfectly acceptable clinician, but he is a minor thinker.

Could you be more specific?

aaaand his mom gay

He supports soylent green.

Well his idea of truth is a bit odd.

He claims that truth is more real than the empirical world, but has no decent ontological argument for it. On his first Sam Harris interview he tries to explain this with an example where a house is on fire, and a man asks you, "Is the room on fire?"
He claims the empirical answer, "No," is not true because it does not answer the meaning of the question that was actually asked, i.e. "is the room safe?"
This example fails to address the ontological reality of truth - instead, he is saying at most that the human perspective is vitally important to anything we understand.
Take this to the extreme, and you get some Berkeley absurd shit. Instead, I expect that he is a Kantian of some sort.
Regardless, I don't think he has a legitimate ground for his belief of truth, even though I find it compelling.

>He supports soylent green.
Ah, trolling then.

>Maps of meaning attempts to solve the is-ought problem by further specifying is, which misses the point.

Could you be more specific?

>he is a minor thinker.

I don't see an argument.

Peterson is the last barricade of a white, middle class north american protestant mentality, besieged by trannies, smothered by the liberal managerial state and bombarded by terabytes of internet porn. tbhh i feel a deep aesthetic revulsion towards Peterson's suburban boomerism but the left is even more shrill and insufferable, why can't we get on with the race war already?

tfw white america will disappear lmao

>why can't we get on with the race war already?
I really want to see you white pasty faggots in a war

afaik he does summarize his "position" in a pivotal footnote of rule 7 of his 12 rules book:

> And this is all true, note, whether there is--or is not--*actually* such a powerful figure, "in the sky" :)

He seems to go out of his way to make sure everything he says is consisten with God being like, an emergent property of consciousness or morality, not a personal entity. which is odd considering how much a lot of his videos come off like sermons

I just read his book and this was the best thing I could come up with. His solution as far as i understand is basically
> examine what makes you hate the world and learn from it instead of becoming spiteful
> make sure your own life is in order before going after the life of others
both of which sound like results rather than paths to solution

Attached: 1507198185007.gif (206x176, 370K)

Mfw people still think skin pigment matters for anything outside of vitamin D and skin cancer.

Attached: 6168803+_5e9d3896141ae8cd46112789e425e2af.jpg (291x326, 15K)

>Because he doesn't have a short one. If you want to understand his position watch the maps of meaning lectures. That is his answer.

Y-you have give arguments against papa JP. If you w-want my argument go watch 200 hours of his lectures desu

Individualism has to be cultivated in the context of a community in which the person differentiates himself from the collective for its benefit. If the community itself isn't involved in the interactive process of self-development, an ideal cognitively equivalent to God can't emerge and the individual ends up optimizing for self-image, rather than the satisfaction of social needs. By making a God of himself, without integrating properly into (and caring for) society, he either acts out of a bitter sense of duty, if there's still some decency left in him, or cowardly averts responsibility whenever it threatens his immediate self-interest. Worst case scenario, his self-control may get utterly fucked up.

It's important to create a supportive community from the outset. Doing so doesn't make you a collectivist, nor does it require you to renounce your individuality. It's a platform for higher flights.

I don't think he has ever made a convincing argument as to why his young White male followers shouldn't engage in movements that promote White identity.
It's also strange how he'll emphasize the importance of IQ but never address the racial aspect of the IQ debate.
This is what is motivating his leftist enemies. He gives White identitarians tons of ammunition, but doesn't effectively discredit their movements. Probably because he can't.

HE IS NOT WRONG, HE IS LEADING THE CRUSADE AGAINST SJW, GAY, TRANS, BLACK AND MEXICANS.
I LOVE YOU JP

bro, you forgot the postmodern neomarxists

t. pasty homosex

to add to my post here, ...what would JP's advice have been to Cain, the spiteful, unrespected brother who was unfavorable in God's sight?

> hardmode: you can't use the Gulag Archipelago or a school shooter as an example

i hope you know a good answer because i feel alot more like a cain than an abel :(

Attached: fregg.jpg (446x362, 23K)

This is as specific as I'm going to get on my phone: he accepts the fact-value distinction, believes the crucial problem with the modern world is that we don't understand the relation of fact and value properly. We would understand value better if we understood myth/how a mythological account of the world constituted value for people. Because the value that is constituted is narrative in character it bears an implication of how we should act. It boils down to papering of the gap between is-ought with a ton of narrative, value-laden detail. Which is fine, there are way dumber positions. But there are also way smarter ones. If you want a more philosophical, if less psychologically sophisticated take on similar themes check out Leo Strauss' student Stanley Rosen. Who Also engages in criticizing postmodernism, but not in a gay way in "hermeneutics as politics"
(Note: I have only seen a handful of his videos but I read maps of meaning as my brother is into JP)

t. dumb nigger

Because he doesn't know the definition of post-modernism.

I think I grasp what you're getting at. That isn't the solution to stop resenting existence per se, it's the solution for how to live a better life. The solution for the school shooter one is far more complicated.

Which you want from me hahahaha, this will take a bit to write out so I'll follow up in a sec (hard mode challenge accepted.)

True wit. Here's an oversimplification for you:
at a minimum, God as the personification of the abstracted highest ideal and the forces of reality exists in the same way numbers exist.

The black/white racial difference in IQ is pure bunk. Look up the Flynn effect for god's sake. As it stands, there is under a 4 point difference between African American and white American IQ's. This gap continues to close. The difference can be nearly 100% be controlled for by environment. There is no scientific reason to believe it's genetic and a lot of reasons to think it isn't.

As for why (white) identity politics is terrible: see Nazis. White identify politics is awful because identity politics is awful. Every single one of his arguments against identity politics cut every kind of identity politic.

And you do?

I know enough about it to know its got nothing to do with everything being subjective or destroying the western world.

>God as the personification of the abstracted highest ideal and the forces of reality exists in the same way numbers exist.

How, though? Axioms are supposed to be self-evident...

I don't go around giving fake definitions and make millions out of it

>tfw white america will disappear lmao

It's better to burn out than to fade away

Attached: 1-21-2017 watermark.jpg (1103x1600, 187K)

>peturdson

Attached: 1517935179835.jpg (576x586, 78K)

Then what is it?

The character of Cain has no real drive to be anything, he is a lazy misanthropic murderer. If the Bible is anything to go by, misanthropes have been around since time immemorial. You're going to have to make a decision user, do you want to pine and spite or make a future for yourself despite your situation with no guarantee of success. Same guarantee everyone else is given.

Not that user btw.

How can you tell he's wrong though?

what?

>his explication of better thinkers ideas is vulgur
this is true
>he has no morals
idk bout dat - but he does seem super cucked on anything related to jews and nazis and the lolocaust

>He Doesn't Want to Unleash Full Scale Violence Against the Freaks who Are Destroying America.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 23K)

Skepticism of universalism broadly. And no, this doesn't mean "denial there's an objective reality", but an acknowledgement that our perceptions and biases prevent us from ever truly knowing it.

What Peterson does is the equivalent of noticing scientists always record uncertainties and propagate them as they work and saying "science has been compromised! They're saying you cannot know nuffin to destroy western culture!"

nah, that's Zizek's job

Yeah. They are the one destroying america, not the one that export all your jobs and pay you like trash

Obviously the highest being would be ideal, obviously, the most powerful thing would be the forces of reality. What part of this is not self-evident?

>what would JP's advice have been to Cain, the spiteful, unrespected brother who was unfavorable in God's sight?

Probably to clean up his damn room, roughly speaking. Memes aside, I'll lay out rough logic, you let me know if there is a step where you're not making the jump with me.

1. It would be better if things got better for me
2. Taking cainian actions will make things worse for me
3. Therefore, I should not take cainian actions

Why you should be good follows a similar logic, but more complicated.

1. It would be better if things got better for me
2. Orienting myself towards making things better for me requires making things better in my environment
3. People are a major part of my environment
4. Therefore, improving my environment and being "good" to others makes things better for me.

The key thing here is actually wanting things to get better for you. Which is an act of faith and love. You have to be willing to say: "I care about myself and want things to get better."

I've never been a fan of white america, but the gynocratic managerial dystopia bound to replace it seems worse in every way. I feel the levelling forces of GLOBOHOMO/ZOG closing in, assimilating and emasculating the planet at an ever faster rate. I choose to take a stand, not for 'the white race' or 'america' or even muh western civilization, but as a pure assertion of will against the state

Attached: mcveigh2a-3-web.jpg (750x1050, 140K)

Nothing of that is self-evident. You can keep repeating a definition, that won't make it an axiom. I see the necessity of the definition for the pragmatic side of his worldview, but the definition itself is not necessary.

Attached: rdqtu6uc53b01.jpg (1920x777, 217K)

He doesn't understand postmodernism and regularly strawmans Derrida, Nietzsche, and Marx.

Okay. Then if not ideal, what would the highest being be? If not the forces of reality, what would the most powerful being be?

>implying there's a difference

Attached: corp.-sponsors-for-pride-are-necessaryx750.jpg (750x563, 78K)

>regularly strawmans Derrida, Nietzsche, and Marx.

Wat. He loves Nietzsche, doesn't seem to care for Marx, but does dislike Derrida. 1/3 you get an F user.

The mistake is assuming the existence of 'the highest being' or 'the forces of reality'. I'm not saying that there isn't a way to create a system that gives those things as corollaries, but taking assumptions that big seems pretty ridiculous. Sorry for the broken English, I'm new to the language.

These threads sure do fill up fast

Attached: 1520890822512.jpg (306x306, 20K)

I'm just gonna pop in and define JP's belief, through /tv/.
>Man of Steel.
>JP believes in heaven as an ideal to strive towards—movie Interstellar: Who's to say we won't become God.

>Sorry for the broken English, I'm new to the language.

I wouldn't have known, you're doing fine. Keep in mind I gave a limited simplification. I'm offering the part of his understanding that is easily compressed into a couple sentences. Outside of that I really do have to default to the "watch the lectures" answer.

The little bit more I can squeeze out, however, is he would not say God is real the way a table is real. It is a psychic rather than physical phenomena. If you have specific questions about his understanding I can try to answer them, but no guarantees.

Peterson threads all end up the same. I think discussion would be better if people read more

Here are some people I think Peterson fans should look up: Walter Ong, Ivan Illich, Cornelius Castoriadis, Christopher Lasch, Thomas Szasz, Charles Taylor, Hans Blumenberg, Paul Ricoeur, Paul Gottfried, Leo Strauss, Seth Benardette, Hannah Arendt, Raymond Williams, Richard Rorty, Arnaldo Momigliano.
I'll add some later.

>Arendt
lol read some Jew whine about "totalitarianism" for thousands of pages so you can feel superior to the plebs who watch e-celebs like peterson

oh it's that philosophy fag that thinks to understand any book you have to read ten other obscure shitty books first...yea, if u don't read ricouer and rorty you'll just totally miss the point of 12 rules bro

I don't disagree with his definition of God, not because his existence is as evident of the existence of numbers, but because it's useful (and that's an important word) to assume so.
I mean, I'm not really disagreeing with all the ideal of the highest being, but it's on a different level than that of numbers. It's not self-evident in the same way. I don't know if I'm explaining myself right. Thanks for the help!

i agree with this post , except....

>better
what do you do if an individual's resentment devalues people's/society's capacity for "good" and "better", things are so ugly and mundane that improvement seems no longer worth pursuing and participation in life is suffocating and tedious and bad and annoying to everyone invovled

what if u clean your room but then u find out its made of shitblood rotten semen vomit gray septic maggot meat and you are the very kernel of its disarray and ugliness, you are the thorn in existence's side and it would be better if you just like generally weren't here and didnt have to be counciouss of your own existence and etc

Attached: dehumanize.jpg (600x447, 51K)

are we supposed to laugh at his incorrect or bowdlerized interpretation of H's concept? he's writing for a general audience, not rich jewish kids who want to seem smart (those kids all read zizek, derrida, foucault, horkheimer, adorno, marcuse, benjamin, lacan - mainly secondary sources)

That's right.
I don't think anyone has to read a dozen books before reading 12 rules. But just like Peterson, his fans don't seem to read very much. Reading anything would be of help. None of those authors are obscure.

He's nothing more than a basic bitch conservative with a psycho-mythological coat of paint. His only real qualm with the liberal managerial state that he's stooged for for decades is that it no longer caters exclusively to the fragile egos of peti-bougie baby boomers who think mayonnaise is too spicy. The only reason anyone even knows who he is is because his demonological psycho-philosophy and diet antisemitism momentarily aligned with the neuroses of the kind of cheeto-munching ne'er do wells who consider sharing frog memes on reddit to be a revolutionary act.

>hey there could potentially be something to the religion of the most successful civilization on earth
The west is only the most successful civilization on earth for now. For most of history they've been btfo by China or India, and judging by China at the moment that's going to continue to be the case.

>India
>Btfo anyone
For 5000 years they've never reached beyond their borders.
Same with China, only for a few decades did China ever look beyond itself.
While the west is built upon discovery, India is even a child of us.

>He loves Nietzsche
And also misreads Nietzsche. Peterson claims N. is a postmodern thinker, when the truth is N. alternated between reactionary and modernist arguments. N.'s capital-i Individualism is one of the least postmodern things ever described.

>Doesn't seem to care for Marx.
Peterson regularly makes claims about Marxism (& communism more broadly) that are outright false. Marx wasn't against all forms of inequality. Marx didn't distinguish along the lines of "winners and losers." Marx would not have supported the Soviet Union.

>Does dislike Derrida.
And he misreads Derrida. Peterson's description of D.'s position ("lmao everythings a false dichotomy bro") is strawmanning at its worst.

All 3 of these thinkers are misrepresented in Peterson's lectures. His attitude towards them doesn't matter; he misunderstands and/or lies about what they have to say.

Attached: 29104355_1713323708714206_1322463672169136128_n.jpg (640x637, 33K)

I hope that your 'us' means that you are european and not american...

The more and more you guys insult him without subtance the more and more you sound like SJWs. You all claim to be so logical and rational yet sook like children all the time.

I'm respecting this guy more and more now because of the dodgy manner in which he is attacked and the effort he puts into his work and talks.

Keep going dickheads, see where it gets ya. Old, cynical and alone.

t. 14 yo

It's quite alright. I'd argue that numbers are not self-evident at all. Show me a number. Not the symbol, the actual thing.

Obviously, you can't, because a number is a useful abstraction it doesn't "exist" from a materialistic perspective.

We act like they exist, because as you note it is useful to do so. But, numbers are so ridiculously useful that is some sense they are more real than physical things. I'd argue this is the same for God.

The first thing you do it stop it from getting worse. Don't lie. Don't do things you know makes things worse. Whatever that definition is. You need to be willing to make a bad first draft of your life.

You very well may be a sack of shit. There may be no reason to think of yourself as good. You could be in Hell and deserve it. I have no intention of sugar coating. But, it doesn't have to stay that way. Don't be happy with who you are; self-esteem is bullshit. Feel good about who you COULD become. Face the bit of hell you can in your room. Don't even face the whole room. Face a desk, face your bed, but take a step forward.

If you can find a way to make your life 1% better today, and you do that every day, then at the end of the year (365 days) your life will be 37 times better.

Identify with the part of yourself that can change, not the static thing you are.

Sorry if that was sermony!

Oh for sure. You'll note that the fall of the religious values strangely correlates with Asia getting ahead ;)

Not that I have any problem with that, good on them. I am currently studying Zen heavily; they have a lot of good in there. Plus psychoanalytically their spiritual traditions are arguably even more advanced, except for their articulations of good and evil.

>Peterson claims N. is a postmodern thinker
Can you cite this? I've watched hundreds of hours of JP and never heard him say Nietzche is postmodernist.

>Peterson regularly makes claims about Marxism
Yes, but not Marx. Additionally, his claims are almost always specific to post-modernism, communism, or both. I've rarely heard him specifically go after or even mention Marxism.

As for Derrida, I really can't speak to it I haven't read any Derrida.

He won't talk about either race differences or Jews which makes him kind of lame. I really don't care though, there is no hope left

I don't think it's his speciality.
t. Starver of 6 million Ukrainians.
bucko

> (You)
> The first thing you do it stop it from getting worse.
> [...]
my entire point from what you're replying to is what if "better" doesn't seem actually better. what if my proverbial room (i.e. life and existence) seems so shit that even if it was clean it would be just as bad

what do u do then

What do you guys think of this? youtube.com/watch?v=AwXAB6cICG0

even worse, what if your room is basically mostly clean already and you still feel like this

Attached: images.jpg (300x168, 15K)

Why is he afraid to debate any of the intellectual White nationalists?

He points some contradictions, otherwise it's retarded. Fedora tier retarded.

How so?

I mean, it's a good critic because Peterson is shown as quite inconsistent, but falling for the objectivity and realism meme in 2018 is not worthy of any praise.

What is there if not objective reality?

On the real? Nothing.

>rationality rules
>he looks like this

I don't even have political opinions anymore, just contempt for people who disgust me

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 10.31.59 PM.png (478x309, 173K)

Pure solipsism?

Not even that. I am not objectively real either.

I'm sold, buying his book now.